So who DO you agree with?

If one does not believe, then that person is being punished for every sin he committed. It is kind of a mute point in practical terms though. There is not much of a difference between and eternity in hell and an eternity in hell.

I like you point about being condemned already vs condemned if we do not believe. The latter implies we are ok until we in our own ability reject the Lord.

 

You are giving a definition for atonement that is extra-biblical. Christ did die for all sin, even the sin of unbelief...completely. It satisfied God's wrath. Man is commanded believe and be saved, don't and you won't. We cannot pay for our own sin, even one by going to hell. It is a slap in God's fact to even insinuate any mortal man can repay an eternal God for even one sin. There is only One who can do that, and He did.

 

Exactly, my point, Man is not TOTALLY DEPRAVED. Depraved yes, but not totally.

And I agree with what you have said hear about the grace of God. However, I believe that it is resistible, that men have a choice to choose or reject God once they have been show his grace.

 

Well, whenever you say you do not believe in Calvinist doctrine like Total Depravity, they first thing they will say is you do not understand it. But not all of them believe exactly the same way. So who knows what they really mean? They don't even know for certain themselves it seems to me.

Whether an unsaved man can do good is difficult. Jesus said there was only one who was good, and that is God. But Jesus also said the unsaved know how to give good gifts to their children.

So I think we have to distinguish whether we are speaking of being "righteous", which means without sin, and "good", which does not mean exactly the same thing. There is a verse that distinguishes between the two.

Rom 5:7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die.

This verse seems to distinguish between a righteous man and a good man. I cannot be absolutely certain, but I think a righteous man is a saved person who has had the righteousness of Christ imputed to them. And I think that a good man is an unsaved man, but a morally good man, at least compared to men in general.

And the Lord complimented Nathaniel for his honesty.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.
46 And Nathanael said unto him, Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.
47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!
48 Nathanael saith unto him, Whence knowest thou me? Jesus answered and said unto him, Before that Philip called thee, when thou wast under the fig tree, I saw thee.
49 Nathanael answered and saith unto him, Rabbi, thou art the Son of God; thou art the King of Israel.
50 Jesus answered and said unto him, Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig tree, believest thou? thou shalt see greater things than these.

Jesus paid Nathaniel a true compliment here, calling him a Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile! So Nathaniel must have been an extremely honest man.

But was Nathaniel already saved? He came when Philip said they had found The Prophet who Moses and the prophets prophesied of. So obviously he believed the promise of God. And Jesus called him an Israelite indeed which fits with Romans chapter 9.

Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.

So, I tend to think Nathaniel was already saved by believeing the Old Testament promises and was therefore righteous.

But did he trust on Christ as his personal saviour at this time? And this is where it gets difficult for me anyway. I personally believe God holds a person accountable for what has been revealed to them. OT saints may not have understood the details of who the Messiah would be and what he would do exactly, but yet they believed he would come and deliver them somehow.

However, once Jesus came, it seems to me that now they were responsible to believe more, they were required to believe what Jesus revealed unto them, that he would go to the cross, bear their sins, die, be buried, and rise from the dead.

But back to the subject, I think man is able to do some good, although of course all men "come short" of the glory of God.

Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

Come short is an interesting phrase, because it implies that a man can do some good. If you were watching baseball and a player hit a ball to the fence but not over, we would say it "came short" of being a home run. But if the man struck out, we would never say that. So, this seems to imply that a man can do some good, although no man can be sinless like God.

What does this have to do with labels? Nothing. Just something interesting to consider.

 

To say that I compared you to the JW's is quite a stretch. I was simply using an extreme example of how everybody - whether their views are orthodox or 'far-out' tries to defend themselves by saying they just believed the Bible.

It was not an insult, and never intended to be one. But it was within the parameters of defending a debatable point in an ongoing discussion.

No offense was intended. I'm wondering at what angst brought about such a response?

 

These things show the depravity of man. I still maintain my position that man is depraved but not totally.

American Dictionary of the English Language Noah Webster 1828
Depraved, 2. a. Corrupt; wicked; destitute of holiness or good principles.
Totally, adv. Wholly; entirely; fully; completely.

from an earlier post

I must disagree, to be Totally Depraved means to be as evil as man possibly can be, with no shred of ethics or morals, with no desire to cease from sin or to do what is right. Totally Depraved means wholly corrupt, entirely wicked, fully and completely destitute of holiness or good principles. To use the words Totally and Depraved together and come to any other conclusion is a travesty of language.

Well, obviously, something that is able to be resisted is not irresistible.

from an earlier post

One thing that does disturb me though is that so many who are pro calvinist do not really maintain accurate definitions for terms they employ. They use a term and then spend several paragraphs clarifying what they really wanted the term to mean, despite the clear definition of the words.

 

Exactly. The pro-Cals are always telling the non-Cals we do not understand their belief. But the terms they use do not accurately define what they say they believe.

I agree with you, total means 100%. And irresistable means that something cannot be resisted.

It is difficult to debate with pro-Cals as the definitions of their very own terms have the ability to evolve to the situation. I don't think they understand their own belief really.

 

I'm just filling in for language Cop while he's away.

 

I purposely posted in the form of questions, seeking clarification.

I don't think my definition of atonement is extra-biblical. That was the point of my questions. Does atonement atone or does it not atone, or does it not completely atone?

Regarding your other statement, the we can't pay for our sin, even by going to hell, I need to think about that. I've taken it for granted that an unrepentant sinner actually pays a penalty for sin by going to hell. Maybe we can talk about that in another thread.

 

Umm.. No.
The reference of 'comdemned already' does not speak of a judgment made in eternity past but that you 'already' stand condemned with respect to the judgment future. The one who believes is not condemned presently, but the one who does not believe stands presently condemned because they have rejected the only thing that can save them from the judgment to come.

 

Brother, scripture speaks specificially that at no time does the provision of the atonement do anything for a person's sin apart from faith. The propitiation is applied by faith (Rom 3:25). Thus even those who will be believers, with respect to the atonement, it has done nothing toward nor for them as of yet. Though it was made for them the very provision it gives has not been yet applied and will only be so by faith.

Therefore it atones completely but only to those who have it applied (by God) through faith.

 

Allan, I'm with you. :thumbs:

 

Oooh, I got tingle bumbs :laugh: :thumbs:

 

Allan, I see no other way to read that passage and not conclude the same.

It will hermeneutical gymnastics to find something else.

 

Agreed brother, agreed. :saint:

 

Actually, Allan, I'm with you and TCGreek, too. In no way do I wish to diminish salvific faith. I"m really not talking about what saves us. The subject under discussion is the atonement.

I have no problem with Romans 3:25. The faith which saves frees us from the penalty of sin. That precisely is what propitiation does.

God applies the propitiation to those who believe. I think we're agreed on that.

Where we'll go separate ways is over the question of propitiation and the unbeliever. My view, as you know, is that propitiation was made for those for whom it was intended--those who will believe. Your view is that it is intended for everybody, but applied only to believers.

Of course, I still wonder why, if Jesus made the payment for everybody's sin, God failed to inform a large number of people about it.

 

This is not about the Trinity or any of the essentials. So I don't need to align myself with the label that is being spoken of here.

 

The Trinity is an essential of the faith. I have no problems using that term.

So now someone is supposed to identify themselves with one of these 2? Who is making these 2 labels an essential? The problem here is that terms are being misused like crazy on this Board. People do not even agree on what these terms means so why should one identify with any label not even agreed on????